← All Phrases

“short term capital gain”

Capital GainsSection 2(42A)Section 2(42A)1,986 judgments

The decision most relied on for short term capital gain is CIT v. Ace Builders (P) Ltd. (281 ITR 210), cited in 88 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on short term capital gain

CIT v. Ace Builders (P) Ltd.
281 ITR 210 · 2005 · High Court
88
citing judgments

The deeming fiction in Section 50, which treats capital gains from depreciable assets as short-term, applies only for the purpose of computing capital gains under that section. For other provisions, such as set-off of losses under Section 74 or deductions under Section 54E/54EC, the asset's original character (long-term or short-term) is to be considered.

CIT, Panji v. Dempo Company Limited
74 Taxmann.com 15 · 2016 · Supreme Court
62
citing judgments

The 20% tax rate under Section 112 applies to capital gains arising from the transfer of a depreciable asset, even if it is deemed a short-term capital gain under Section 50, provided the asset was held for more than 36 months. The fiction created by Section 50 for treating such gains as short-term does not alter the long-term nature of the asset for applying the tax rate under Section 112.

Raja Bahadur Kamakhya Narain Singh v. CIT
77 ITR 253 · 1970 · Supreme Court
49
citing judgments

The Supreme Court clarifies the distinction between income chargeable as capital gains and income taxable as business profits, guiding the assessment of whether a transaction constitutes a transfer of a capital asset or is in the nature of trade.

Indl. Development Co. (P) Ltd., 82 ITR 588 (SC). (ii). CIT v. H. Holck Larsen
288 ITR 641 · 2007 · Reported
41
citing judgments

Surplus received on sale and purchase of shares should be treated as capital gains (short-term or long-term as applicable) and not as business income.

Mrs. Madhu Kaul v. CIT
363 ITR 54 · 2014 · High Court
35
citing judgments

The period of holding a flat for capital gains purposes commences from the date of the allotment letter and the first installment payment, not from the later date of possession or registration.

Gopal Purohit v. JCIT
29 SOT 117 · 2009 · ITAT
33
citing judgments

The revenue is debarred from taking inconsistent stands on similar facts across different assessment years, adhering to the rule of consistency. Short-term capital gains are assessable under the head 'Capital Gains' only.

Raja Bahadur Visheshwar Singh v. CIT
73 ITR 652 · 1969 · Supreme Court
26
citing judgments

The intention of the assessee at the time of purchasing shares is a key criterion to determine capital gains treatment. This intention can be ascertained from how the purchase was treated in the assessee's books.

JCIT v. Montgomery Emerging Marketing Funds,\n
100 ITD 217 · 2006 · ITAT
23
citing judgments

Each transaction can be considered a separate source of income, allowing taxpayers to choose between the Income-tax Act and a Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) for each transaction. Section 70(2) of the Act does not prescribe an order for setting off specific short-term capital losses against specific short-term capital gains, favouring the taxpayer in interpretation.

Judgments citing short term capital gain

DCIT - 10 (3)(1), Mumbai vs. Netlink Solutions (India) Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 2021/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Netlink Solutions (India) Income-Tax, Pvt. Ltd. 10(3)(1), 57, Laxmi Plaza, 2Nd Floor, Room No.212, Laxmi Industrial Estate, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, New Link Road, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Andheri West, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 069 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacv3426V M/S Netlink Solutions (India) The Dy. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd. Income-Tax, 57, Laxmi Plaza, 10(3)(1), 2Nd Floor, Room No.212, Laxmi Industrial Estate, Vs. New Link Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Andheri West, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 069 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agarwal, Adv &For Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, SR. AR
Section 10(38)Section 143Section 143(3)

erred in law and in facts in confirming the addition of long term capital gain of ₹1,39,79,838/-, short term capital gain of ₹82,18,221/- and treating the same as income from other sources.” ITA Nos. 2021 & 1657/Mum/2019 Netlink Solutions ... capital loss of ₹12,05,287/- without appreciating that the transaction related to Long Term Capital Gain (₹ 1,39,79,838/-) and Short Term Capital Gain (₹82,18,221/-) being sham transactions, the assessee had introduced its own unaccounted money to that extent and also when later it had paid

Netlink Solutions (India) Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT Circle 10(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed

ITA 1657/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am The Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Netlink Solutions (India) Income-Tax, Pvt. Ltd. 10(3)(1), 57, Laxmi Plaza, 2Nd Floor, Room No.212, Laxmi Industrial Estate, Vs. Aayakar Bhawan, New Link Road, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Andheri West, Mumbai-400 020 Mumbai-400 069 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacv3426V M/S Netlink Solutions (India) The Dy. Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd. Income-Tax, 57, Laxmi Plaza, 10(3)(1), 2Nd Floor, Room No.212, Laxmi Industrial Estate, Vs. New Link Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Andheri West, M.K. Road, Churchgate, Mumbai-400 069 Mumbai-400 020 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: S/Shri Madhur Agarwal, Adv &For Respondent: Shri C.T. Mathews, SR. AR
Section 10(38)Section 143Section 143(3)

erred in law and in facts in confirming the addition of long term capital gain of ₹1,39,79,838/-, short term capital gain of ₹82,18,221/- and treating the same as income from other sources.” ITA Nos. 2021 & 1657/Mum/2019 Netlink Solutions ... capital loss of ₹12,05,287/- without appreciating that the transaction related to Long Term Capital Gain (₹ 1,39,79,838/-) and Short Term Capital Gain (₹82,18,221/-) being sham transactions, the assessee had introduced its own unaccounted money to that extent and also when later it had paid

Asst CIT Cir 5(3)(2), Mumbai vs. Tolani Shipping Co. Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 7035/MUM/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Feb 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm (Hearing Through Video Conferencing Mode) आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.7035/Mum/2016 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09) बिधम/ Acit-5(3)(2) M/S. Tolani Shipping Co. Room No.573, Aayakar Ltd. Vs. Bhavan, 5Th Floor, M. K. 10-A, Bakhtawar, Nariman Road, Mumbai-400020. Point, Mumbai-400021. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaact4127C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajesh Mishra (Dr) Assessee By: Shri Satya Prakash सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 18/02/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Revenue Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 22.08.2016 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) -58 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2008- 09. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds: - "1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Restricting The Addition Of Rs.30,96,52,860/- Made By The Ao/Tpo To Rs.12,00,43,750/- On Account Of Profit Split Method, Ignoring That The Tpo Rejected A.Y.2008-09 The Cup Method After Giving Detailed Reasons In The Order Passed U/S 92Ca(3).

For Appellant: Shri Satya PrakashFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Mishra (DR)
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 50Section 92C

also included in the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act. On verification, it was found that the assessee did not include the Short Term Capital Gain in sum of Rs.209,45,51,797/- for the purpose of computing the book profit claiming that the profit on sale of depreciable ... found allowable, hence, the same was added to the income of the assessee. It was also noticed that the assessee has claimed the short term capital gain on mutual fund to the extent of Rs.1,56,39,204/- which was covered in view of provisions

Mr. Santokumar Gograj Adukia, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-17, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 990/MUM/2021[202-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2022

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 990/Mum/2021 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Mr. Santosh Kumar Gograj बिधम/ Pcit-17 Room No.120, 1St Floor, Adukia Vs. B-401 Twin Apartment, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 To C- Marve Road, Opp. Marve 43, G Block, Bandra Kurla Nsg. Home,Malad- Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400064. Mumbai-400051 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaapa7459F (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Shailesh Bandi Revenue By: Shri A. K. Kardam (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 27.03.2021 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - 17 Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Pcit)”] Relevant To The A.Y.2012- 13 In Which The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-17 Has Invoked The Provisions U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Pr. C.I.T, Mumbai-17, Has Grossly Erred In Passing An Order U/S 263 Of The I.T Act, Without Providing An Opportunity Of Personal Hearing, Which Is Against The Principles Of Natural Justice & Is Bad In Law.

For Appellant: Shri Shailesh BandiFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Kardam (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 69ASection 69C

prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. In the relevant assessment year no Long Term Capital Gain was claimed. Short Term Capital Gain (STCG) was claimed to the tune of Rs.27,897/- and taxed. After reducing the DMAT charges, the said transaction has already been disclosed with. Since

Shri. Mohan Kashiram Kadam, Navi Mumbai vs. ITO 28(2)(2), Navi Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 658/MUM/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 658/Mum/2020 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Mohan Kashiram Kadam बिधम/ Ito-28(2)(2) 418/419, The Great Eastern Room No. 307, Tower No.6, Vs. Galleria, Sector-4, Nerul, Vashi Station Complex, Navi Mumbai-400706. Vashi, Navi Mumbai- 4000703. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aanpk4585D (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Aditya Ramchandran Revenue By: Ms. Neha Thakur (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 31/01/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 06.11.2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-26, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, 1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming Action Of A.O. Of Adding Short Term Capital Gain U/S 50 Arising Out Of Sale Of Depreciable Asset To The Tune Of Rs. 25,13,544/- By Denying The Exemption U/S 54F In

For Appellant: Shri Aditya RamchandranFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Thakur (Sr. AR)
Section 50Section 54F

circumstances of the case and in law, 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming action of A.O. of adding short term capital gain u/s 50 arising out of sale of depreciable asset to the tune of Rs. 25,13,544/- by denying the exemption ... erred in confirming action of A.O. of denying the exemption u/s 54F in respect of investment in residential property against the abovementioned short term capital gain though the agreement for purchase of residential property, loan sanction letters and housing loan statements etc, were duly submitted during assessment proceedings

Mumbai Sez Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 39, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby partly allowed

ITA 7022/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Vp & Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No. 7022/Mum/2013 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Mumbai Sez Ltd. बिधम/ Dcit, Central Circle-39 1St Floor, Jai Centre, 34, Mumbai Vs. P.D. Mello Road, Opp. Red Gate, Masjid, Mumbai- 400009. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcg2739C (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri Madhur Agarwal Revenue By: Shri A. K. Kardam (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 15/12/2021 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Present Appeal Against The Order Dated 12.03.2012 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-41, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Cit(A)”] Relevant To The A.Y. 2007-08. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds: - “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.11,26,507/- Under Section 14A R.W. Rule 8D Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Ita. No.7022/Mum/2013 A.Y. 2007-08 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.41,02,40,470/- Claimed Under Section 57(Iii) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Each One Of The Above Grounds Of Appeal Is Independent & Without Prejudice To Each Other.

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgarwalFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Kardam (DR)
Section 10(35)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 263Section 57

commence revenue operation and no profit & loss account was prepared. In the computation of income, the assessee has shown income under the head Short Term Capital Gains amounting to Rs.3,09,31,438/-. The assessee has also disclosed the income under the head „Other Sources‟ amounting to Rs.41

M/S. Medi Assist Insurance Tpa Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-12(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1933/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Feb 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B R Baskaran & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Medi Assist Insurance Tpa Pvt. Ltd., The Dy. Commissioner Of Tower ‘D’, 4Th Floor, Ibc Income-Tax, Knowledge Park, 4/1 Bannerghatta Vs. Circle - 4(1)(2), Main Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru-560 029. Pan –Aaccm 8044 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Prabhu, C.A Revenue By : Shri Sumeer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 10.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.02.2022 O R D E R Per Beena Pillaithis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- 4, Bangalore Dated 22/3/2018 For The Asst. Year 2011-12 For Computing The Short Term Capital Gain At Rs.7,80,38,353/-. 2. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Before Us “(I) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Dcit & Cit(A) Erred In Computing The Short Term Capital Gain At Rs.7,80,38,353/- By Adding The Negative Net-Worth Instead Of Restricting The Same To Nil As Deeded Cost, Since Cost Cannot Be A Negative Value Page 2 Of 19

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Prabhu, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Sumeer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)
Section 142(1)Section 50B

assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A)- 4, Bangalore dated 22/3/2018 for the asst. year 2011-12 for computing the short term capital gain at Rs.7,80,38,353/-. 2. The assessee raised the following grounds before us “(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case ... learned DCIT and CIT(A) erred in computing the short term capital gain at Rs.7,80,38,353/- by adding the negative net-worth instead of restricting the same to NIL as deeded cost, since cost cannot be a negative value Page 2 of 19 (ii) On facts and circumstances